The Sunset of Darwinism

tfp ^ | 06.04.08 | Julio Loredo

[Coyoteman]

If Darwin's theory of evolution were true, there would be in every species a constant and ruthless competition to survive: a competition in which only a few in any generation can be winners. But it is perfectly obvious that human life is not like that, however it may be with other species. This inconsistency, between Darwin's theory and the facts of human life, is what I mean by 'Darwinism's Dilemma'. The inconsistency is so very obvious that no Darwinian has ever been altogether unconscious of it. There have been, accordingly, very many attempts by Darwinians to wriggle out of the dilemma. But the inconsistency is just too simple and direct to be wriggled out of, and all these attempts are conspicuously unsuccessful. They are not uninstructive, though, or unamusing.

David Stove, Darwinian Fairytales

Strawman.

From Wiki:

In his final years Stove began to examine and criticize Darwinism. This surprised and dismayed many of his supporters who were Darwinists and thought Stove was as well, judging from the way he sometimes spoke. However, Stove's attack on Darwinism was not as radical as it appeared - he accepted evolution was true of all living things, and said he had no objection to natural selection being true of more primitive organisms. What he wanted to attack was the allegedly distorted view of human beings proposed by some "Ultra-Darwinists."

[LeGrande]

If Darwin's theory of evolution were true, there would be in every species a constant and ruthless competition to survive: a competition in which only a few in any generation can be winners. But it is perfectly obvious that human life is not like that, however it may be with other species.

The theory doesn't state that only a few in any generation can be winners. Your extrapolation is simply a poorly constructed strawman. Do you even know what the theory of evolution is?

[LeGrande]

Another insurmountable problem with Darwinism is the lack of any evidence of species jumping which is critical for evolution as a viable explanation for the origin of existence.

Where does the theory of evolution explain the origin of existence? The theory of evolution is very simple, it is simply "the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.."

Do you look to the Bible for the cure for cancer? Never mind answering that, I already know your answer. That is why your reasoning is flawed.

[Oztrich Boy]

Darwin’s theory of evolution is now fading away

Again?

[Tramonto]

Where does the theory of evolution explain the origin of existence? The theory of evolution is very simple, it is simply "the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.."

The ever changing definition of evolution.... I didn't realize the whole evolution/intelligent design debate was about whether or not offspring were clones of their parents.

With Darwinists, it just depends on what the definition of is is.

[Fichori]

And we all know how accurate Wiki is. ;)

[VanShuyten]

I believe in Intelligent Design. I also believe that God designed it so as to be perfectly indistinguishable from evolution.

[Milhous]

And we all know how accurate Wiki is. ;)

It seems that one revisionist wikiwarrior ceaselessly crusades to try to rehabilitate Ra^ther's fraudulent Killian memos.

[Fichori]

All I know about WikiPoodle is that when it comes to controversial subjects, they are best avoided as a source.(especially in debates)

They are somewhat useful for non-controversial stuff though.

[xzins]

In the same wavelength, Harold Hurey, a disciple of Stanley Miller who made history with his failed attempt to recreate life in the laboratory from a so-called primordial broth, said, “All of us who studied the origins of life uphold that the more we get into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved in any way.”

The above is one of the greatest scandals of darwinism....that they now deny that they ever posited a darwinian abiogenesis.

The truth is that they simply redefined their theory and cut out the hard parts.

All of us baby boomers and earlier remember the textbooks with the primordial soup/protein sea/lightning strike stories about the origin of life. Deny as much as they want, I KNOW that darwinianism taught darwinian abiogenesis.

[Randy Papadoo]

I believe in the science of Darwinism, and I believe in the story of creation as written in the Bible.

The first belief is practical, and the second is faith-based. I don’t have a problem with that, so I don’t beat the contradictions to death.

A belief in God (or whatever you want to call it) does not deny science, but does help us reach an understanding of certain mysteries of life and nature not otherwise explainable (yet).

There are plenty of old-time articles of faith which science has rendered obsolete. Nevertheless, going back to the very beginning, there is no science (there are theories) to explain how cells found their way to connect with each other and create life. God did that.

[Non-Sequitur]

Praised until recently as dogma, Darwin’s theory of evolution is now fading away, discredited by the same science that bore its poisoned fruit.

Wishful thinking on the author's part.

[sagar]

God damn Newtonian Gravitational Theory. It caused twin towers collapse.

[LeGrande]

The ever changing definition of evolution.... I didn't realize the whole evolution/intelligent design debate was about whether or not offspring were clones of their parents.

You still don't understand what the theory of evolution is. "the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.."

That is not talking about clones, which are identical.

With Darwinists, it just depends on what the definition of is is.

Again you are confused. That was Clintons problem, not the theory of evolutions problem.

[Wonder Warthog]

"At the other extreme is Darwinism, where all is observation. Rigorous measurements and experiments require 1,000 to 10,000 times recorded history. Scientists contemplate observed phenomenon, and decide evolution explains everything. Yet evolution does fail computational testing with Thermodynamics covering macro-processes. Natural processes, required by natural selection, create increased disorder and release energy. Even huge energy inputs result in Katrina, and not the Brooklyn Bridge absent intentionality."

You score 100%----WRONG. EVERY statement in this paragraph is incorrect.

"Rigorous measurements and experiments require 1,000 to 10,000 times recorded history."

In-lab tests done using short-lived organisms don't need "1000 to 10,000 times recorded history", and prove natural selection quite nicely.

"Yet evolution does fail computational testing with Thermodynamics covering macro-processes. Natural processes, required by natural selection, create increased disorder and release energy."

Study more thermodynamics. Order can INCREASE in open systems . It's only in the "total system" in which order always decreases---localized order is a well-proven phenomenon (crystal growth is one non-living example).

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

The theory doesn't state that only a few in any generation can be winners. Your extrapolation is simply a poorly constructed strawman. Do you even know what the theory of evolution is?

"in every generation of every species a great many more individuals are born than can possibly survive; so that there is in consequence a perpetual battle for life going on among all the constituent individuals of any given generation."

Romanes, Darwin and After Darwin

That's one example. Such quotes from evolutionists can be multiplied indefinitely.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

I know of no one in my age group who does not recall abiogenesis being taught as part of evolution theory.

But, of a truth, Darwin never asked or answered the question "what is life?" He never theorized about abiogenesis openly possibly because it would have been professional suicide in the religious climate of his day to theorize a Godless origin of life. As I recall, his mentioning of a warm little pond was in private correspondence.

Further I suspect the educators of my day expected abiogenesis to be quickly proven owing to the success of Urey/Miller (circa 1953) in simulating lightning strikes to bootstrap amino acids. But the Urey/Miller experiments went no further than amino acids.

They of course did not have the whole story. About the same time, Crick/Watson discovered information in life, i.e. DNA. But neither did they at the time understand the full import of information theory (Shannon, 1948) to molecular biology.

Only recently, circa 2002, have we seen empirical evidence in the Wimmer experiment which bootstrapped the polio virus under laboratory conditions.

Wimmer began with the information sequence of RNA which he synthesized to DNA (because RNA cannot be synthesized) and then synthesized the message from DNA to RNA. When he added the message to a cell free juice, it began transmitting and duplicating.

The bottom line is that information (successful communication) is at the root of life v non-life/death in nature and thus any theory of abiogenesis. And science (owing to its self-imposed restriction of methodological naturalism) has determined no materialistic origin for information in the universe.

For the Christian, the answer is obvious. Jesus Christ is Logos, the Word of God.

he heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard. - Psalms 19:1-3

To me it is much like the 1960's measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation which established (and continues to establish by measurements since then) that there was a beginning of real space and real time.

To paraphrase Jastrow's observation of that as the most theological statement (there was a beginning) ever made by science: when science climbs that last mountain of scientific knowledge, it will find the theologians sitting there, waiting for them.

BTW, even the cosmic microwave background radiation records the pressure waves or sound in the early universe when photons decoupled from "electrons, protons, and neutrons; then atoms formed and light went on its way.”

But science as a discipline cannot see what the Christian sees. But of course, Christians who are scientists do see this.

At any rate, the educators of today seem to have been backpedaling on their inclusion of abiogenesis in evolution theory for quite some time now.

[Non-Sequitur]

Intelligent Design on the other hand is basically a self-evident truth.

Which means, I assume, that no evidence supporting it is needed? How convenient.

[xzins]

You are such a blessing, sister. You are always way ahead of my knowledge on these subjects.

Can you explain the RNA/DNA synthesizing again? How did he synthesize what cannot be synthesized?

[Ethan Clive Osgoode]

And we all know how accurate Wiki is. ;)

Wikipedia even posthumously baptizes the creationist James McCosh as an "evolutionist." I suppose, in the case of Stove, that when evolutionists make that connection, you're supposed to think he believed the same nonsense they believe, and stop citing him. Here's a quote from Stove:

"Of course there are many other characteristics, besides those I have so far mentioned, which are peculiar to our species, persistent in it, and yet extremely injurious to reproductive success. One of the most obvious, and therefore one of the oftenest noticed, is the unparalleled dangerousness in our species of parturition, to both mother and child. Another obvious one, is our ancient propensity for committing suicide. (Although, since there already is at least one sociobiologist who thinks that homosexuality is a device for enhancing your reproductive success - your inclusive reproductive success, of courses - no doubt some sociobiologists think the same about suicide.) A third injurious attribute which persists in our species - and a biological error which I greatly regret having been guilty of myself - is, the reading of hundreds of books about evolution, which abound with idiotic statements such as the ones I have just quoted from Alexander and Darwin."